India, the world’s largest democracy, faces a moment of serious reflection. Recent political upheaval, accusations of electoral fraud, and increasing distrust in constitutional institutions have raised an essential question: Who really represents the Indian people?
While the public appeal signed by 272 individuals, including retired judges, diplomats, civil servants, and veterans, highlights concerns about Indian democracy, it is crucial to recognise that such a small group cannot claim to represent the voice of 1.4 billion citizens, underscoring the importance of electoral legitimacy.
Their letter may serve as a warning, but it is not a directive. The only legitimate mandate arises from free, fair, and credible elections. And it is precisely this mandate that is now under challenge.
Surprisingly, the same signatories do not question the anomalies in the ECI, where electoral rolls have been manipulated. Freebies distributed to target voters are ignored in a free and fair election.
Electoral Rolls Under Suspicion: The New Fault Line
Opposition parties have submitted detailed evidence alleging manipulation of electoral rolls in Haryana and Karnataka. Their submissions include booth-level discrepancies, unexplained additions and deletions, and constituency-wise anomalies that suggest targeted tampering.
Multiple letters and representations have been submitted to the Election Commission of India (ECI), but the constitutional body has largely remained silent. The lack of clear explanations or publicly available audit data has only heightened public suspicion.
A democracy cannot afford opacity regarding its most sacred instrument—the voter list.
The Judiciary as the Proposed Refuge—But Not the Trusted One
In response to opposition concerns, the ruling party has repeatedly offered a single solution: “Go to court.” However, the judiciary itself has become a contested arena.
Many see the courts as biased, too willing to favour the executive, and reluctant to examine electoral irregularities. Cases involving political funding, electoral disqualifications, or constitutional issues often have expected results.
When a citizen begins to doubt judicial independence, the last shield of democracy starts to crack. And when both the ECI and judiciary lose public trust, India’s democratic structure is at risk from within.
Institutional Turbulence: The Real Threat
Indian democracy’s most serious crisis today isn’t political rivalry; it’s the gradual weakening of institutions designed to serve as neutral guardians of the republic. This decline is subtle but clear, and if left unchecked, it could permanently erode trust in democratic outcomes.
Election Commission of India: Silence That Speaks Too Much
Once revered under the strict leadership of T. N. Seshan, the Election Commission of India (ECI) now faces unprecedented scrutiny. Despite receiving detailed complaints about inflated rolls, duplicate entries, and targeted deletions, the Commission has failed to demonstrate the transparency it is expected to provide, which undermines its role as the guardian of electoral integrity.
It has refused to publish voter-roll verification data, resisted calls for an independent audit, and provided no substantial explanation for sudden roll revisions.
In a democracy of India’s scale, transparency is not a courtesy—it is the bedrock of legitimacy. The ECI’s silence deepens mistrust and creates the perception that it is reluctant to confront political pressure. An unresponsive Election Commission does not merely fail in its duty—it threatens the sanctity of the electoral process itself.
Judiciary: When Perception Becomes Reality
India’s courts have historically served as the safeguard against executive overreach. However, today, the view of an excessively compliant judiciary is hard to overlook.
Key electoral cases, whether involving political funding, re-poll demands, or allegations of misconduct, often progress very slowly or are dismissed without thorough review.
A judiciary that seems to align with political power, even unintentionally, undermines citizens’ last hope for justice. Judicial independence must not only exist but also be evident. When courts are contested, democracy loses its previous safeguard.
The Political Class: Equal Opportunity Saboteurs
India’s political class, both in government and opposition, bears equal responsibility for undermining the credibility of institutions. They have developed a troubling pattern of viewing constitutional bodies not as neutral guardians of democracy but as tools for political ends. When election results favour them, these institutions are lauded as independent, effective, or even exemplary. However, when outcomes are not in their favour, the same institutions are criticised as compromised, biased, or influenced. This selective morality, driven more by partisanship than principle, has weakened the country’s institutional framework far more than any ideological conflict could.
This has caused a dangerous shift in how institutions are viewed and treated. The ruling party increasingly asserts its control through the executive, applying subtle or overt pressure for institutions to follow government priorities. Meanwhile, the opposition often replaces solid evidence with dramatic public statements, rallies, and claims aimed more at headlines than at institutional review. These practices have transformed constitutional bodies into arenas of political conflict rather than respected judges of the democratic process. Such opportunism erodes public trust in institutions and harms the long-term integrity of India’s democratic structure.
The Global Context: Why Electoral Roll Integrity Matters
Electoral roll integrity is the foundation of any modern democracy because the voter list determines who can participate in choosing the government. Around the world, developed democracies prioritise the accuracy of their voter rolls. In the United States, voting is strictly limited to citizens, and illegal participation results in severe criminal penalties. The United Kingdom requires voter identification and conducts regular audits to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of elections. Australia enforces strict identity verification procedures and even conducts offshore screening to prevent irregular migrants from accessing civic rights.
Similarly, nations like France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea enforce strict citizenship-based voting rights and swiftly remove irregular migrants to prevent distortion of democratic processes. These countries recognise that allowing ineligible individuals onto the voter rolls undermines the credibility of the entire electoral system. India, with a population of over 1.4 billion, faces risks far greater than those of other democracies. Even a slight discrepancy of one per cent can amount to millions of votes. Such differences can decisively influence results in many constituencies.
Without biometric-linked voter rolls, geo-tagged verification, and regular independent audits, India risks holding elections where outcomes could be manipulated through flawed rolls rather than reflecting the genuine will of the people. As the world’s largest democracy, India must implement robust global best practices not as an option, but as a fundamental requirement.
Civil Society’s Role: Watchdogs, Not Proxies
Civil society plays a vital role in any democracy by acting as a moral compass, a source of public pressure, and a counterbalance to state institutions when needed. However, it should not be confused with the electorate itself. The recent statement by the 272 signatories reflects the conscience of a segment of India’s intellectual and administrative heritage, reminding the nation that dissent is not disloyalty and silence is not virtue. Their voice adds value, raises concerns, and encourages reflection, but it does not and cannot represent the sovereign will of India’s 1.4 billion people.
The true custodians of Indian democracy are ordinary citizens who demand fairness, individual voters whose participation is sacred, and the electoral process that must remain free from manipulation. Civil society’s duty is to question, challenge, and strengthen democratic institutions so they operate with transparency and integrity. However, it must not try to replace these institutions or claim representational authority on behalf of the nation. Its power lies in persuasion, vigilance, and moral stewardship — not in proxy representation.
What Must Be Done: A Blueprint for Democratic Repair
Cleanse and audit electoral rolls. India urgently needs independent, technology-driven audits for every election cycle. Biometric verification, automated discrepancy detection, and third-party oversight must become standard practice.
Institutional Transparency. The ECI must publish voter-roll data, clarify revisions, and communicate transparently regarding allegations. Silence is unacceptable.
Strengthened Judicial Independence. Transparent, independent processes should oversee judicial appointments, case assignments, and election-related adjudications.
Opposition Responsibility. Formal complaints and evidence must support political charges.
Ruling Party Accountability. The government cannot dismiss concerns by telling opponents to “go to court” when the courts themselves are mistrusted. Genuine engagement is essential.
Empower Citizens. Civic literacy, voter-roll checks, and local-level participation in verification drives must be encouraged. Democracy is strongest when citizens are vigilant.
Conclusion: Democracy Cannot Be Reduced to 272 Voices
India’s democracy is too expansive, too diverse, and too enduring to be articulated by any group of eminent individuals, whether 272 or 27,200. Their letter is a signal, not a substitute for the people’s sovereign will.
But its message is clear: democratic trust is declining, and the institutions responsible for maintaining it must take action now.
The allegations of manipulated rolls in Haryana and Karnataka must be taken seriously. The ECI cannot back down. The judiciary must stay independent. Political parties must stop selectively undermining institutions.
Democracy does not survive because a few speak loudly; it survives because the many trust deeply.
That trust today stands fractured.
Restoring it is a shared responsibility among institutions, leaders, civil society, and the citizenry. Only then will India protect not just the mechanics of democracy but also its moral authority—and its future.